Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000

Re: 90GB table on Windows 2000

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:34:24 -0000
Message-ID: <appcbt$qtb$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

Correct,

There were no problems due to 'simple volume'; but there were various 'mechanical' constraints on data arrival, and query requirements that added some interesting implementation details - which then ran into a seemingly endless stream of 'interesting' side-effects. In short, most of the problems were arguably bugs - mostly fixed in newer versions.

--
Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Next Seminar dates:
(see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html )

____USA__________November 7/9   (Detroit)
____USA__________November 19/21 (Dallas)
____England______November 12/14

The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html





Pablo Sanchez wrote in message ...

>"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:app48s$mhr$1
>$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk:
>
>>
>> Correction - 32GB per week.
>
>Was that 32GB/week - per 24 hours, per seven days a week? Doesn't
>sound like all that much ...
>
>32G/wk * wk/7 days * 1 day/24h * 1h/60m * 1024M/G
>
> = 3.25MB/minute
>
>This makes me 'guess' that the issues were not related to hardware
>performance ... business issues? Bugs?
>--
>Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering
>http://www.hpdbe.com
Received on Wed Oct 30 2002 - 13:34:24 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US